.png){kind=icon}
‘[T]he test for standing should require a more direct and tangible interest in the matter to which the application for judicial review relates. That would exclude persons who had only a political or theoretical interest, such as campaigning groups.’ (Ministry of Justice, Judicial Review Proposals for Further Reform, Cm 8703, September 2013, para 80).
Critically assess the arguments for and against narrowing the test for standing for judicial review claims.
- Explain the test for standing in judicial review. Why is it needed?
- How have the courts applied it in practice? Discuss how the courts have recognised standing more broadly, allowing claims to be brought in the public interest e.g. by pressure groups. There are many cases to choose from to illustrate and support your arguments on this.
- What were the government’s reasons for proposing a narrower test? Assess them.
- What would be the effect of a narrower test for standing? Think about the significance of the judicial review process. What criticisms were made of the government’s proposals to narrow the test? What are the rule of law implications?